with that definition there are at least 200 bitcoin because about 200 (give or take) altcoins have forked from bitcoin. a lot of them have actually given airdrops like BCC to the users and hodlers of bitcoin.

a correct definition however is, bitcoin is what the consensus says it is. and you already know what the consensus rules say bitcoin is.

If core still ignores miners and NYA when building 'consensus' code ... there will be more shit happening - YES.

Carpe diem - cut the down side - be anti-fragile - don't dillute Bitcoin!A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no signing - also because of Sartre.The simple way is the genius way - in Moore and Satoshi we trust.

with that definition there are at least 200 bitcoin because about 200 (give or take) altcoins have forked from bitcoin. a lot of them have actually given airdrops like BCC to the users and hodlers of bitcoin.

a correct definition however is, bitcoin is what the consensus says it is. and you already know what the consensus rules say bitcoin is.

Agree ...however, others will be referred as altcoins

but these ones are still regarded as "bitcoin". I would say the untapped market is still way too big for all the three to grow

I would not mind if for every fork I would be receiving some free coins into my account in the exchange that can be supporting the new altcoin. However, I think this whole thing has to stop because it will make Bitcoin look like a joker. Anyway, I am sure it would not really happen that way. One split I think is enough. Not unless we want to make this whole thing a big comedy then we can have a good laugh.

I would not mind if for every fork I would be receiving some free coins into my account in the exchange that can be supporting the new altcoin. However, I think this whole thing has to stop because it will make Bitcoin look like a joker. Anyway, I am sure it would not really happen that way. One split I think is enough. Not unless we want to make this whole thing a big comedy then we can have a good laugh.

haha, i am with you on that. the free money is always welcome.

but at the same time this can be a good thing too. for example when things like bitcoin cash fail eventually it proves that when you make a contentious hard fork it is bound to be doomed. and will prevent any similar actions in the future.

I would not mind if for every fork I would be receiving some free coins into my account in the exchange that can be supporting the new altcoin. However, I think this whole thing has to stop because it will make Bitcoin look like a joker. Anyway, I am sure it would not really happen that way. One split I think is enough. Not unless we want to make this whole thing a big comedy then we can have a good laugh.

But is it necessary to get a free coins? and that we know that this kind of coins are just a waste of time from the start, I really think that it became a real shitcoin that are only good to dump, well let's just wait for more years to come if this kind of coin can have a real value. and I really think that the split should be enough and regardless of a notable free coins it is still suck to expect anything from the start.

with that definition there are at least 200 bitcoin because about 200 (give or take) altcoins have forked from bitcoin. a lot of them have actually given airdrops like BCC to the users and hodlers of bitcoin.

a correct definition however is, bitcoin is what the consensus says it is. and you already know what the consensus rules say bitcoin is.

Couldn't have said it better. There is only Bitcoin and there are alternatives, regardless of whether or not they were forked off the legacy chain. And if consensus lies in a future fork, then that "technical" alt will be Bitcoin.

Most miners and Bitcoin economy including exchanges are behind SegWit2x, effectively enought to call this version Bitcoin. But it is likely there going to be 3rd version of Bitcoin in November, because there might be enought support for a new version of Bitcoin not honouring SegWit2x, thus exchanges might list this new coin as well.

I would not mind if for every fork I would be receiving some free coins into my account in the exchange that can be supporting the new altcoin. However, I think this whole thing has to stop because it will make Bitcoin look like a joker. Anyway, I am sure it would not really happen that way. One split I think is enough. Not unless we want to make this whole thing a big comedy then we can have a good laugh.

haha, i am with you on that. the free money is always welcome.

but at the same time this can be a good thing too. for example when things like bitcoin cash fail eventually it proves that when you make a contentious hard fork it is bound to be doomed. and will prevent any similar actions in the future.

Absolutely,such hard forks happening and failure of coins got after it only increases the trust over bitcoin that it could not be destroyed and bitcoin price and demand increases more than it was before.But these people like Roger ver who recently became bitcoin antichrist would never get a lesson and they would still try to do such acts even in the future.

The hard fork in November can not happen, and therefore will not happen. There is absolutely near-zero support from the community and likewise from the developers. There will also not be "3 Bitcoin". There is 1 Bitcoin, the rest are altcoins. Bitcoin Cash (aka bcash, aka BCH) will always be an altcoin, and the same will apply for any controversial hard fork.

I would not mind if for every fork I would be receiving some free coins into my account in the exchange that can be supporting the new altcoin. However, I think this whole thing has to stop because it will make Bitcoin look like a joker. Anyway, I am sure it would not really happen that way. One split I think is enough. Not unless we want to make this whole thing a big comedy then we can have a good laugh.

That is a problem though. Continually having splits is driving the community apart. There isn't that many of us in this community as it is, and now a lot of people are switching sides and choosing a side to stick with.

I do not think there will be a 3rd split but a lot can change between now and then.

I am keeping an ey eon BCC or BCH or whatever people want to call it. Ihave seen their mempool getting cleared and no one is complaining about their nodes not working or anything. It may turn out to be their max 8MB block size really isn't a problem as many seem to think it is.

At any rate, it is a good test to show what happenes when BCC can do up to 8 MB blocks. I Imagine if they do well for months that a 2MB increase may come to BTC.

Satoshi had it planned for on-chain scaling as his idea for the future. We will see.

I am keeping an ey eon BCC or BCH or whatever people want to call it. Ihave seen their mempool getting cleared and no one is complaining about their nodes not working or anything. It may turn out to be their max 8MB block size really isn't a problem as many seem to think it is.

1) The mempool is empty because nobody is using that shitcoin. It did get some transaction volume as people were rushing to dump it.2) A maximum block size of 10 TB can't be a problem if nobody is utilizing it. The same applies for the 8 MB maximum size on their chain.

The hard fork in November can not happen, and therefore will not happen. There is absolutely near-zero support from the community and likewise from the developers. There will also not be "3 Bitcoin". There is 1 Bitcoin, the rest are altcoins. Bitcoin Cash (aka bcash, aka BCH) will always be an altcoin, and the same will apply for any controversial hard fork.

Bullshit. Just because you slap the name Bitcoin in front of some word and premine existing balances, that doesn't mean that it is Bitcoin.

Sigh ... and just because you slap 'core' on some code it does not need to be good or consensus....

The NYA is active consensus - go play with your pets and do not destroy Bitcoin (Cash or notCash).

Carpe diem - cut the down side - be anti-fragile - don't dillute Bitcoin!A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no signing - also because of Sartre.The simple way is the genius way - in Moore and Satoshi we trust.

Bullshit. Just because you slap the name Bitcoin in front of some word and premine existing balances, that doesn't mean that it is Bitcoin.

Bitcoin cash regards themselves as the real bitcoin.And I also believe if they did not use the word "bitcoin", used "bcash" for example, they would fail on the first day. [ no offence just personal opinion ]

Bullshit. Just because you slap the name Bitcoin in front of some word and premine existing balances, that doesn't mean that it is Bitcoin.

Bitcoin cash regards themselves as the real bitcoin.And I also believe if they did not use the word "bitcoin", used "bcash" for example, they would fail on the first day. [ no offence just personal opinion ]

What do you think?

in my opinion it is not just the bitcoin name it is also building on top of bitcoin chain!and it will fail or at the very least have a very tough time in the world of cryptocurrencies because of that. there were 16.4+ million coins available (some call it premine even) and people are dumping that and dumping leads to panic sell and leads to lower and lower prices.low prices lead to low profit for miners and them leaving and their leaving leaves the network vulnerable. of course there is bitmain with all their hashrate which are backing it up, i am sure.

if they built something from the ground up it would have been a lot more successful than this. it may have even be worth at least 0.5BTC right now. for you see mining from block 0 could have meant no premine, no dump, and even regular users mining it. that is how all the rest of the altcoins work so far.

Bitcoin cash regards themselves as the real bitcoin.And I also believe if they did not use the word "bitcoin", used "bcash" for example, they would fail on the first day. [ no offence just personal opinion ]

What do you think?

If I create an altcoin and name it Bitcoin CATE, and I say it is the real Bitcoin, does that make it so? There you have your answer. Bitcoin Cash is just a premined altcoin.

Bitcoin Cash is an afterthought. It's an altcoin without much support from any of the ecosystem (users, services, miners). I'm much more interested (and slightly worried) about Segwit2x. A lot of bitcoiners are against hard forks 100%, and after having it explained to me a few different times, I can sympathize with that.

But it seems like the vast majority of miners and Bitcoin businesses are behind the Silbert agreement. That sounds like a recipe for a split! If Segwit and the improvements it brings (along with LN) alleviate congestion on the network with real scalable solutions, I could see miners and companies defecting from Segwit2x. For now, though, anything could happen.